Iran

[Resurrection Man]

.....
I strongly suspect that the more detailed anaysis is compiled in such a way as to scare us. .....

Well, if you are coming from that standpoint then there is nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise. No figures. No stats. No expert opinion. Teamsaint has it sussed.

If you look at the shape of the curve, it looks to be increasing exponentially. However, you have already dismissed this as, according to your crystal ball, advances in healthcare and nutrition are not going to improve at the same rate that they have done over recent years.

Ah well, clutch at straws if you must.

[teamsaint]

you actually don't read or accept anything you don't like , do you?

You just cast aspersions, and pose vague open questions.
You have done nothing at all to provide evidence or discuss the way the evidence is presented, whereas I have.You just ignore evidence you don't like. Advances in nutrition? don't make me laugh. What about obesity crisis that they beat us up with ?Healthcare imporovements? I factored those in .
Any way you slice it 500k centenariann in 2066 is guessowrk, and biased guesswork at that.
Pointless.Trolling by any other name.
I am leaving this thread until there are further developments in our threats to Iraq.

Edit, before I go, there seem to me to be two ways to deal with government statistics and press releases.
a. Believe everything they say.
b. Read them and apply some critical thought.

[Resurrection Man]

.......that the clerics who are the real power behind his "throne" have repeatedly criticised him on many grounds including in particular his inflammatory comments on Jews and Christians, .......

That is rather selective reporting. For example, read here http://www.payvand.com/news/10/jun/1017.html There are moderate clerics who speak out against him but the hardliners who support Ahmadinejad seem pretty well entrenched.

On the other hand, there is clearly some advantage to the US and Israel and their own imperialistic "ambitions" to having a hardliner in Ahmadinejad's position.

That is very true. Meanwhile the Iranian regime continue to support and provide arms to Syria to continue the torture of their (Syria's) own population. A six-year old child being electrocuted, as reported today, being among the latest atrocities.

And attempt to suppress any dissent http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/0...inst-bloggers/

[Sydney Grew]

. . . the ravings of a dangerous political thug in . . .

In . . . er . . . where did you say that thug was again?

[Thuggery: the use of violence for criminal purposes . . . ]

[ahinton]

In . . . er . . . where did you say that thug was again?

[Thuggery: the use of violence for criminal purposes . . . ]

Indeed. Whilst all the problems and troubles in and surrounding present-day Iran would not, of course, disappear overnight if all troops active in countries that have not invaded their own nations were withdrawn and due international public apologies issued by the governments of those countries who've withdrawn them to the governments and peoples of the countries so vacated, it would nevertheless be far more than a mere good start.

[Thropplenoggin]

Speaking of terrorising civilian populations with technical pre-eminence and scant regard for international law, I wonder if Assad learned anything from these past masters:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-counterproductive-report

God Bless America!

[amateur51]

Speaking of terrorising civilian populations with technical pre-eminence and scant regard for international law, I wonder if Assad learned anything from these past masters:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-counterproductive-report

God Bless America!

I'm just as concerned about the development and deployment of drones as I am about nuclear bombs :yikes:

The day a 'terrorist' organisation deploys a drone on a Western embassy the balloon really will go up. Are they easily detectable by radar?

[handsomefortune]

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mortal...-eve-2010.html

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/aug-2011/dwp096-11.shtml

Are the two links that we have both already seen.
The number of 100 YO's quadrupled to just over 12000 from 1985 to 2010

If you quadruple that every 20 years you still don't get anywhere near 500k, which is the DWP assertion.
I strongly suspect that the more detailed anaysis is compiled in such a way as to scare us. Are 16% of people born in 1962 really going to make 100?

I also suspect that the recent quadrupling, though it will likely continue, coincides with the first generation to live their second half century with NHS care.....which suggests to me that the increase may in fact flatten out.
I stick to what I said. Very few people reach 100 years old, and to suggest that we are heading for a time where this happens to large parts of the population is part of a pensions reduction lie, not a true reflection of reasonable expectations.

well said team saint! i tend to agree with you.

due to recent 'atos' dramas around benefit withdrawal from people who are terminally sick, i read about other aspects of dwp stats that are routinely fed to 'the daily mail'. various broadsheets have exposed the dwp, as well as charities being critical of claims,, since their headline grabbing stats proved to be almost entirely cooked up. ie mainly for mass consumption of the notion that 'the sick and unemployed are 'scroungers'' apparently. papers like 'the mail' rely on a game of split personalities, one day headlining with 'scroungers', the next with someone from 'a new community' supposedly living it up in hampstead....amongst the 'yummy mummys' ...(or whatever uber posh mums are called this week). this 'news' strategy works best on those who have a tacit interest in news, are totally ignorant of history ...and really suits those readers mainly interested in williI AM's cellulite, and/or those with the attention span of a fairground goldfish.

There really is no point in having a discussion with you, is there. no there isn't any point in discussion with scotty, heliocentric ...because unfortunately he doesn't always play fair. nevertheless, some really great posts on the way to various mb fowls, (courtesy of the usual suspect/s).

imo 'the long view', in particular, is crucial to getting to grips with western interventions in the ME, as history tends to repeat itself.

it is nevertheless incredible that we are being asked to swallow the same excuses as 2003...and so soon after the oil barons have had their pipe lines firmly installed in iraqi deserts. despite thousands of kurds being gassed by saddam's regime, i've never EVER seen brits and americans get so miffed, so suddenly, about past mass killings (which kurds call 'anfal' in the ME) before. personally, i shalln't trust either uk, or US leaders in terms of supposed 'wmd threats' ever again. unfortunately, the vengeful satisfaction of kurds 'happy' at saddam's execution proved very brief. elation wore off pretty quickly in the light of kurdistan being no better off, whatsoever, since saddam's removal,: (even) more oil, and jobs going to the west, and migration proving a huge disappointment to the majority who fled to a 'job free', and financially crashed europe.

from a relatively selfish pov, sadly, the iraq war has ruined the labour party's image domestically ...though they could at least have a go at hilary c, (especially when she's 'on the war path' about iran), redeem themselves..... a fraction!

neither is it mere coincidence imo, that we rarely hear from any left wing americans, or israelis, (unless you count chomsky, who's usually ridiculed ....for his 'old fashioned attitude', since he deals mainly in history.....and not the fake stats of the media of a given era).

a great shame tony judt died young, in this particular respect. judt provided a vibrant, brutally honest commentary, which is the kind of brutality most sensible people prefer... as actual physical violence might then be avoided, at least pre empted. judt's work is a great, and increasingly rare reason to be 'patriotic' imo! a huge shame it takes a dying man to risk an attempt at proper in depth analysis, in a world apparently currently content with half truths.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/07/historian-tony-judt-dies

adam curtis has also made some invaluable historical docus, especially on his blog (scroll to bottom of link). curtis short blogs reveal the more ridiculous 'doubters' posting on this forum, for what they actually are imo... ignorant of history and the repetition often implied http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/.

(just for the record, curtis has been honoured in the US with various prestigious awards for his docus....such as 'the golden gate persistence of vision award'. so, let's not pretend curtis's historical retrospectives reflect the mind of an 'anti american'.... which is far from the truth, a simplification worthy of the dwp stats dept imv!! however, imv curtis does represent the majority of non represented people who would prefer peace, and humanity... above all else. this includes a vast swaithe of normal people in the US, unfortunately led by political opportunists, desperate to be remembered posthumously, just like our very own david cameron, tony blair & co unfortunately).

[handsomefortune]

Are they easily detectable by radar?

not if it's manned by volunteer security from g4s amatuer51! if they were perceived adequate to protect the queen for the royal jubilee....surely they'll suffice to protect 'londoners' and beyond?!

[Simon]

No thanks, I'm satisfied. Anything else is up to you, pal :smiley:

Well, I'm not really satisfied in one sense, as it was going to be fun dismantling piece by piece your house of cards and showing up your dim comments and non-arguments for what they were.

But I suppose I'm satisfied that you've realised that you can't win and have refused to answer my questions.

[amateur51]

Well, I'm not really satisfied in one sense, as it was going to be fun dismantling piece by piece your house of cards and showing up your dim comments and non-arguments for what they were.

But I suppose I'm satisfied that you've realised that you can't win and have refused to answer my questions.

Winning?!? How puerile :sadface:

Well don't let me stop you 'dismantling piece by piece your house of cards and showing up your dim comments and non-arguments for what they were.'

I've explained my original remark about Vavanu quite adequately and you've decided that I've misinterpreted your original point but you've been characteristically reluctant to be usefully specific, hence my 'leave it to you' remark.

[Simon]

Winning?!? How puerile :sadface:

Not puerile at all. People win, and lose, arguments. Part of normal life.

I've explained my original remark about Vavanu quite adequately and you've decided that I've misinterpreted your original point but you've been characteristically reluctant to be usefully specific, hence my 'leave it to you' remark.

You have not explained the relevance of your remark about MV at all adequately. Part of the reason for this, I suspect, is because you misread or misinterpreted my initial remark, which is why I went back to it.

You stated:

"Your initial post on this suggested that the process of Israel's acquiring the nuclear bomb was well-known and unstoppable."

This is simply not true, as my post most certainly did NOT suggest this. And I therefore took issue with it and asked you to explain it. You have yet to do so. If you can, no doubt you will paste the relevant bits. If you can't, we'll accept that you misinterpreted, and move on to the next stage of the discussion.

[Resurrection Man]

you actually don't read or accept anything you don't like , do you?

.....

That could equally be said of you, n'est-ce-pas?

[amateur51]

Not puerile at all. People win, and lose, arguments. Part of normal life.



You have not explained the relevance of your remark about MV at all adequately. Part of the reason for this, I suspect, is because you misread or misinterpreted my initial remark, which is why I went back to it.

You stated:

"Your initial post on this suggested that the process of Israel's acquiring the nuclear bomb was well-known and unstoppable."

This is simply not true, as my post most certainly did NOT suggest this. And I therefore took issue with it and asked you to explain it. You have yet to do so. If you can, no doubt you will paste the relevant bits. If you can't, we'll accept that you misinterpreted, and move on to the next stage of the discussion.

You used the word 'unstoppable', no?

[MrGongGong]

"Your initial post on this suggested that the process of Israel's acquiring the nuclear bomb was well-known and unstoppable."

This is simply not true, as my post most certainly did NOT suggest this.

Simon Says

We couldn't have stopped it: their agents were so deeply involved in the programmes since inception and post WWII that they were always going to get the bomb.

now i'm no linguist
but to my O level brain

"we couldn't have stopped it"
implies
"unstoppable"

?
or did I miss something ? (I did skive off school a lot and go and play with the synthesisers in the art college :biggrin:)

I guess the real problem is that Prof Says has an intellect that is far above any other mere mortal that when HE says something it has an altogether deeper and more profound meaning ?